EPTalso when in mid-game when harassing with your mutas, would it be a better choice to harass undefended or weakly (2-3 cannons) defended expos versus sniping HTs?
Liquipedia Q&A #2 - Questions! - Page 2
| Forum Index > Brood War Strategy |
|
SwEEt[TearS]
Canada1575 Posts
also when in mid-game when harassing with your mutas, would it be a better choice to harass undefended or weakly (2-3 cannons) defended expos versus sniping HTs? | ||
|
Spec
Taiwan931 Posts
-Spec | ||
|
Highways
Australia6120 Posts
Do you think 1 base play into quick expansion is a possibility? This forces zerg to play low eco early on, so when Protoss expands they've already got tech up and Zerg hasnt got a massive economy yet, | ||
|
n.DieJokes
United States3443 Posts
On November 04 2009 08:30 Trozz wrote: Q1: If Zerg's mutas die, And Protoss has no corsairs, And Zerg went Hydra, Would it be worth it For Zerg to rebuild his air? How does Zerg decide? Q2: Protoss's third gas. Zergs will want to delay this. Maybe with 12 lings. If Zerg goes Hydra, And gets no melee upgrades, Can lings stall the third? Because in this game, Luxury does not get lings. He keeps with hydra. Is this a mistake? Are lings not cost effective? (Without the upgrades.) You're fucking amazing, I'm in awe | ||
|
Rainbow
United States249 Posts
I saw the corsair Reaver where the map was LT, the players spawned on the left side. Short distance let the P bring 4 zealots into zerg base, might be able to do enough damage to expand and then macro, tech is already up (robo tech for reaver/zealot drop build, templar tech for DT build) I don't play any z or p, just curious | ||
|
neobowman
Canada3324 Posts
Build basically goes like: Pump mass drones and 6 lings and make 3rd hatchery at standard timing. Make hatcheries when money allows until you have 5. Then get gas at your natural and main, first 50 gas = hydra den, then next 100 = lair. Pumping drones all the while until you have your hydra den up. | ||
|
Kyadytim
United States886 Posts
First, a little context: Lately, I've been having some success with this build, specifically a modification of the 2 stargate follow-up variant that doesn't cut probes as severely. When I don't screw up by missing a pylon or forgetting to upgrade Zealot speed, it seems to kill 5 hatch hydra builds almost every time, because they have no defense. When it fails to be an instant kill, the Zerg players seem to be cutting their drone production early to start hydras, and I can move into the late-game in generally good position. So, my question: Is the current metagame that favors passive Protoss players who don't really move out onto the map until they have a number of templar with psi storm contributing to the success of the 5-hatch hydra? To clarify, if more Protoss used aggressive timing attacks that aimed to hit before the Zerg want to ideally start hydralisk production or make their switch to mutalisks for templar sniping, is it possible that the metagame would shift enough to make the more passive Protoss builds more viable because Zerg will have to slow down their own economy when playing standard to be safe against these timing attacks? To rephrase it to look at the causes side of the theme, have Protoss players brought this situation on themselves by continually shifting to more and more passive play with later and later pushes in reaction to new Zerg developments? | ||
|
JFKWT
Singapore1442 Posts
On November 04 2009 05:13 Oystein wrote: Don`t he open like 4hatch before gas or something that game, at least using a different build than the 3hatch->5hatch but ending up with the same kind of infrastructure in the end? Or am I mistaken? Are such variations counted in the build? edit: Someone above asked about staying on hydras before spire, dunno if thats counted as a 3hat spire 5hat hydra build and when's this gonna happen sry?? | ||
|
youlijp
Brazil112 Posts
zerg is planning to go 3 hatch spire into 5 hatch hydra, but he scouts protoss's base and sees that he is not fast expanding. Protoss blocks his choke with 2 zealots, and negates overlord scouting with one dragoon. zerg then expects 1 base into fast reaver. what deviations should zerg do regarding build order? | ||
|
stevethemacguy
United States137 Posts
Q2: Are Corsair-Reaver builds a good option for stopping the 3-hatch spire into 5-hatch Hydra build? If so, why haven't we seen them used more. Q3: Should protoss be using more Corsairs in general against Zerg? | ||
|
Emon_
3925 Posts
| ||
|
NguN
Australia1322 Posts
Also, somebody posted about making the 3rd a mineral only. Would this balance ZvP, and how would it affect PvT and ZvT? | ||
|
Iplaythings
Denmark9110 Posts
Question: I like to do sair / reaver into carriers on Destination (with disruption to prevent hydra busts). Are there any specific counter build I should watch out for? | ||
|
538
Hungary3932 Posts
 + Show Spoiler +Rock on man My question: on his stream, I very often saw  ret pick different (but all macro based) lurker builds instead of this muta into hydralisk strategy. Seeing as ret is the top contender for the best foreign ZvP title: what may be his reasons for this?Maybe he finds some apm bottleneck in the muta-snipe based mass army control that isnt present in the lurker builds? Is it that the muta stack is more prone to smaller errors in execution due to the possible bursts in damage? (see Luxury vs Guemchi on HBR, or refer to the DA/maelstrom metagame switch discussion in the strategy forum) Or (my guess) is it simply because the 3 base spire into 5 hatch hydra is such a dominant build in this matchup lately that most Protosses simply expect it, and the zealot/archon-heavy army is more susceptible to lurkers (and observer snipes)? (even at his high level, I often saw Protoss almost blindly picking such builds) (little sidetrack: Is this preceived smaller exposure to main zerg tech switches the reason for the seeming emergence of earlier goon-templar transitions? (Lately I often find that protosses dont aim for reaching the "old" number (10-14) of zealots, and often move out with a lot fewer, and with speed upgrades only, in order to surely avoid the mutalisks and the mass hydras both, and to delay zerg harassment.) Is Calm's lategame mass crackling transition/harass (twice versus BackHo recently) abusing the structure of goon-templar play, or just the presumed lacks in preparation and multitasking of his opponents?) In general, what are this build's advantages over lurker/contain builds, and vice versa? An other, shorter, but more general one: What can Protoss do to remain cost-effective in the matchup with all the zerg possibilities in tech switches, and critical structural counters (like the templar snipes of the discussed build) versus most protoss builds, if the mass-effect of a protoss army is negated by the forced macro game and the superior mobility of zerg? Are we going to see a revival of 1-base openings? | ||
|
Hasudk
Denmark78 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + The build: Fast two-gate into expansion, walling off your expo with the gates and pylons and filling the holes with probes and zealots to prevent runbys. Then using the remaining, but still fairly early zealots (compared to standard forge-first fast expand build) to either prevent the zerg from taking a third or from building drones to utilize it, if its already up. This build is probably going to be hard to pull of and it totally backfires in this game, but remember that to succeed with a standard forge-first fast expand you need - perfect timing - good scouting - perfect building placement - fast reactions with your probes if the zerg attempts a run by. This build needs: - perfect building placement - very good zealot micro - probably also perfect timing. But if you can do all of that then it seems like it can provide: - a fairly early and well-protected expo so you dont loose the economic game. - a fairly early army of zealot that can prevent the zerg getting or utilizing his second expo, thereby preventing him from doing a real 5-hatch hydra. You also avoid what I see as being the major problem with forge first: that you are left with almost no early game army and therefor almost no change to prevent the zerg going 5 hatch-hydra, which then pwns the canons at your expo. You do forge first for the economic advantage but is left playing defensively for a long time, because of the threat of a hydra attack. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Chameleon
United States604 Posts
| ||
|
Geo.Rion
7377 Posts
| ||
GHOSTCLAW
United States17042 Posts
On November 04 2009 09:51 da_head wrote: when is this happening? It's in the news post, located here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=104968¤tpage=last Monday, 9th of November, 3.00 KST Sunday, 8th of November, 19.00 CET Sunday, 8th of November, 10.00 PST | ||
|
o3.power91
Bahrain5288 Posts
.Question 1: I notice a lot of Zergs after going for the 3 base spire into 5 hatch hydra build get a late group of Mutalisks to snipe High Templars in order to just roll the Protoss with Hydralisks. What is the most efficient way for Protoss to defend against these Mutalisks? Here a couple of possible answers I am not sure of: + Show Spoiler + One method I've tried using is getting 4 extra corsairs after my initial sair and use those to fight the mutalisks. My problem with this is that if the Zerg sees my sair count, he just sticks to a ground army and rolls me due to my lack of High Templars (IE: I cut HTs to build sairs in order to defend non-existent/remaining HTs against Mutas. Mutas don't come. I lose HT production and have useless sairs). Needless to say, I don't use this anymore although I'm not sure if it can work. One method I've seen some progamers (Violet vs Shine) try, is get a Dark Archon to maelstrom the Mutalisks. Personally, I've never tried this. I want to ask, is it worth it to delay Storm research and delay the HTs themselves in order to defend against the mutalisks? Like the first case with the Sairs, isn't it possible for Zerg to just roll the Protoss with Hydras since there is a lack of storm? Question 2: If you remember the Chill vs Combat-ex showmatch, in each of the games, Combat-ex gets a large gateway count off of 2 bases. I've been doing a similar thing in my PvZ for a while before that showmatch (Edit: 8 gates though instead of 12). It allows the Protoss to sacrifice some econ in order to get a pretty large army pretty fast. I noticed Stork use something similar in his game against Jaedong on Heartbreak Ridge in WCG Korea. I want to ask your opinion on this "build." When is it most viable and when is it absolutely useless? Is this build pretty much a "semi-all in build" or can it be considered "standard"? Question 3: I just thought of this now so I didn't really try it out in an actual game. I remember back in TSL, Nony used to get a quick Dragoon/HT army and attack the Zerg using that. I want to ask, is this viable considering the current trends of ZvP? Sorry for the number of questions. I just love the MU so much  | ||
|
nicoaldo
Argentina939 Posts
Watch Bisu, he plays from 5 gates zealot-archon and 1 stargate sairs so well, doing that, he can expand very aggresively. That is his style, but hes the best PvZ player ever so.. | ||
| ||
